Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Special military operation, what is it good for? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,700
edited March 2022 in General
Special military operation, what is it good for? – politicalbetting.com

From @IpsosUK today. 46% satisfied with govt handling of Ukraine. 38% dissatisfied. Here is how that compares to past conflicts. pic.twitter.com/kcBEyKsVaC

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020
    Mrs eek complained about buying diesel at £1.67 on Thursday. It’s £1.72 today
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,701
    edited March 2022
    2nd.

    A culture note from Psychology Today:

    Seeing the good in others is thus a simple but very powerful way to feel happier and more confident, and become more loving and more productive in the world.

    :smile: (and runs away, in anticipation of the approximately 36 "but ..." subclauses about to be added).
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563
    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
  • Options
    NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    Thought I'd repeat this link https://kyivindependent.com/uncategorized/ukrainian-activists-block-trucks-at-poland-belarus-border-demand-halting-eu-trade-with-russia/
    30 km queue already.

    The dockers refusing to unload Russian gas perhaps a straw in the wind?

    If activist citizens increase the sanctions to close to a blockade...
  • Options
    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,308
    On topic.

    "Absolutely nothing,
    say it again, y'all."

    (With thanks to Edwin Star)
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,701

    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
    The WHO have reported that they confirmed that 43 medical facilities have been attacked in the last 3 weeks.

    The World Health Organization has verified 43 attacks on health care in the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine and says hundreds more facilities remain at risk.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087209901/world-health-organization-ukraine?t=1647785262329
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,337

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    Are you suggesting that they will once again try to crash into everything that comes near them?

    *Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    eek said:

    Mrs eek complained about buying diesel at £1.67 on Thursday. It’s £1.72 today

    £1.89 down here in Devon. Has been for over a week....
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    Are you suggesting that they will once again try to crash into everything that comes near them?

    *Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    No, that's the Dutch shunt, who the FIA have admitted won last year's championship because of human error at the FIA.

    #TaintedTitle
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,253
    We've been needing a bit of Russosplaining.



    https://twitter.com/thereclaimparty/status/1505497818215112709?s=20&t=MN2T68MjmiYHyfkvdryfPA

    Malcolm Ross Newbury (Welsh migrant loving our innovative, industrious, democratic and independent union) thinks it's an entertaining antiwoke viewpoint of the situation.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137

    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
    They didn't want a Special Military Operation Baby....
  • Options
    MalcolmDunnMalcolmDunn Posts: 139
    As usual the author allows his extreme dislike of the Prime Minister to overshadow any point he is trying to make. I rather doubt that the reporting of a tiny element of what was quite a good and certainly well received speech will have any lasting effect whatsoever on Johnson's period as PM. If people's living standards decline for a prolonged period and the opposition parties manage to put together a semi plausible scenario to allay that ( a huge task for them) then Johnson is doomed. But perhaps not otherwise.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    On topic, there will be plenty saying "We need to have a No Fly Zone!" Their polling response might be different if asked "Do you want to die in a nuclear strike if we enforce that No Fly Zone you want?"
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,061
    MattW said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
    The WHO have reported that they confirmed that 43 medical facilities have been attacked in the last 3 weeks.

    The World Health Organization has verified 43 attacks on health care in the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine and says hundreds more facilities remain at risk.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087209901/world-health-organization-ukraine?t=1647785262329
    Of course the Russians are doing that: they want to make any Ukraine as unviable as possible. If they gain control of the whole of Ukraine, they can rebuild the infrastructure and proclaim it as gloriously Russian. If they don't gain control, they leave a wasteland behind them.

    Destroy to rebuild and control.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,991
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    For NickPalmer and TOPPING:

    An overwhelming percentage of Ukrainians believe Russia will be defeated, and do not support a ceasefire unless Russia fully retreats from Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1505473701315284993

    The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.

    image

    Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia

    I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
    I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
    VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.

    We can surmise the aims were:

    1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus.
    2. No NATO for Ukraine.
    3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR.
    4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.

    1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney.
    2. That's a tick.
    3. and 4. are looking achievable.

    VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
    Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060

    Thought I'd repeat this link https://kyivindependent.com/uncategorized/ukrainian-activists-block-trucks-at-poland-belarus-border-demand-halting-eu-trade-with-russia/
    30 km queue already.

    The dockers refusing to unload Russian gas perhaps a straw in the wind?

    If activist citizens increase the sanctions to close to a blockade...

    Didn’t something similar happen with cotton in the American Civil War?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,061
    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060

    MattW said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
    The WHO have reported that they confirmed that 43 medical facilities have been attacked in the last 3 weeks.

    The World Health Organization has verified 43 attacks on health care in the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine and says hundreds more facilities remain at risk.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087209901/world-health-organization-ukraine?t=1647785262329
    Of course the Russians are doing that: they want to make any Ukraine as unviable as possible. If they gain control of the whole of Ukraine, they can rebuild the infrastructure and proclaim it as gloriously Russian. If they don't gain control, they leave a wasteland behind them.

    Destroy to rebuild and control.
    How were they planing on paying for the re-building?
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052
    I see Peter Hitchens' latest attempt to smear Ukraine involves mentioning that the football stadium in Ternopil is named after Roman Shukhevych - a Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator. The name is not used by the Ukrainian FA.

    Of course the real problem with Ukraine is that it wants to integrate with the decadent west, that failing entity Hitchens so deplores.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,337

    As usual the author allows his extreme dislike of the Prime Minister to overshadow any point he is trying to make. I rather doubt that the reporting of a tiny element of what was quite a good and certainly well received speech will have any lasting effect whatsoever on Johnson's period as PM. If people's living standards decline for a prolonged period and the opposition parties manage to put together a semi plausible scenario to allay that ( a huge task for them) then Johnson is doomed. But perhaps not otherwise.

    'Bellend' is appropriate though given he dropped a clanger.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    The opposite side of the bet is proving quite profitable for me so far (which pains me slightly).
    I don’t think Mercedes will come up with a quick fix - it’s likely to take several races - but I haven’t yet written them off for the season.
    If Red Bull and Ferrari stay close enough to each other, it’s not impossible for Mercedes to come trough the middle if they get their act together.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    MattW said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
    The WHO have reported that they confirmed that 43 medical facilities have been attacked in the last 3 weeks.

    The World Health Organization has verified 43 attacks on health care in the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine and says hundreds more facilities remain at risk.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087209901/world-health-organization-ukraine?t=1647785262329
    And as noted on the last thread, it’s been a deliberate tactic in Syria.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    The opposite side of the bet is proving quite profitable for me so far (which pains me slightly).
    I don’t think Mercedes will come up with a quick fix - it’s likely to take several races - but I haven’t yet written them off for the season.
    If Red Bull and Ferrari stay close enough to each other, it’s not impossible for Mercedes to come trough the middle if they get their act together.
    My view is that Leclerc and Sainz are excellent drivers but the way Verstappen attacks I reckon those two don't have the racecraft (yet) to deal with the Dutch shunt and that might lead to a few DNFs for Verstappen and the Ferrari boys.
  • Options
    Tempted to back the Windies here the way England are playing.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,308
    edited March 2022

    As usual the author allows his extreme dislike of the Prime Minister to overshadow any point he is trying to make. I rather doubt that the reporting of a tiny element of what was quite a good and certainly well received speech will have any lasting effect whatsoever on Johnson's period as PM. If people's living standards decline for a prolonged period and the opposition parties manage to put together a semi plausible scenario to allay that ( a huge task for them) then Johnson is doomed. But perhaps not otherwise.

    By Johnson's recent standards (the last 30 years?) and with a far lower expectation than that demanded of any other senior UK politician, the speech was surprising well presented.

    Even if one edits out the analogy that the EU is tantamount to Putin's Russia, there remains an awful lot of, shall we call it, absolute b****cks?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792

    Nigelb said:

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    The opposite side of the bet is proving quite profitable for me so far (which pains me slightly).
    I don’t think Mercedes will come up with a quick fix - it’s likely to take several races - but I haven’t yet written them off for the season.
    If Red Bull and Ferrari stay close enough to each other, it’s not impossible for Mercedes to come trough the middle if they get their act together.
    My view is that Leclerc and Sainz are excellent drivers but the way Verstappen attacks I reckon those two don't have the racecraft (yet) to deal with the Dutch shunt and that might lead to a few DNFs for Verstappen and the Ferrari boys.
    Leclerc and Verstappen have karting history.
    The racing could indeed get spicy.

    But Ferrari have two genuine contenders, while Bull have Perez.
    Mutual DNFs are likely to see the other Ferrari on the top step.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052

    Tempted to back the Windies here the way England are playing.

    Your recent test match bets haven't been too great, no?
  • Options

    Tempted to back the Windies here the way England are playing.

    Your recent test match bets haven't been too great, no?
    Fair, although I did break my golden rule for my most recent test match bet.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    Have put a couple of quid on Sainz at 11/1.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    I see Peter Hitchens' latest attempt to smear Ukraine involves mentioning that the football stadium in Ternopil is named after Roman Shukhevych - a Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator. The name is not used by the Ukrainian FA.

    Of course the real problem with Ukraine is that it wants to integrate with the decadent west, that failing entity Hitchens so deplores.

    Hitchens is a reactionary that hates democracy. No doubt he would have supported Lord Halifax for PM if he were alive during WW2.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,294

    Tempted to back the Windies here the way England are playing.

    Didn’t you back Pakistan earlier in the week and within a few overs they lost four wickets.

    Can you please start backing anyone who plays Newcastle 😉
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,474
    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,061

    MattW said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
    The WHO have reported that they confirmed that 43 medical facilities have been attacked in the last 3 weeks.

    The World Health Organization has verified 43 attacks on health care in the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine and says hundreds more facilities remain at risk.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087209901/world-health-organization-ukraine?t=1647785262329
    Of course the Russians are doing that: they want to make any Ukraine as unviable as possible. If they gain control of the whole of Ukraine, they can rebuild the infrastructure and proclaim it as gloriously Russian. If they don't gain control, they leave a wasteland behind them.

    Destroy to rebuild and control.
    How were they planing on paying for the re-building?
    Well, if it's anything like the old Soviet times, they'll rebuild cheaply and very poorly. And make the Ukrainians pay for it.

    Except when it's a strategic national goal, where they'll pay for it. And in a few decades time, say they want their 'investment' back ...

    In the meantime, there will be less need for infrastructure as many non-Russian Ukrainians will be sent out of the country.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563
    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    Defining winning? I the Russians are slowly grinding forward, especially on the Black Sea coast. They will lose lots of men, lots of vehicles.

    Not sure what Ukraine can do to change that.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    Russia starts conscripting population living in occupied Donbas to reinforce its armed forces fighting in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of international law, including Geneva Convention. Russian officials’ list of war crimes continues to expand. They will be held accountable
    https://mobile.twitter.com/OlegNikolenko_/status/1505277919366627336
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited March 2022
    Well, there could be some progress being made, if some accounts are to be believed.

    Speaking to al-Jazeera television, Turkish presidential adviser Ibrahim Kalin said the two warring factions appeared to converge on four key points. He cited Moscow's demand from Ukraine to abandon the prospect of NATO membership, demilitarization, what the Kremlin calls "de-Naziization" and the protection of the Russian language in Ukraine.


    Kalin also said that a permanent ceasefire could be achieved after a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin. However, the Putin side seems to "consider" that Kiev's positions on issues related to the future regime of Crimea and Donbass have not yet come close enough to the Russians that such a Putin-Zelensky meeting can be justified.



  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,371
    We have seen repeatedly that few things in this country are as politically sensitive as the price of petrol or diesel. I am pretty confident that that is driving polling right now and if Rishi is going to try to recover the situation we just might see a reduction in the level of duty (more than made up for by the additional VAT on the current price, of course). This disperses a somewhat unwelcome windfall for the government, defuses the price of living a bit (only a bit, of course) and shows that the government still wants the country to get moving again (literally in this case). It is, in my view, as close to a no brainer as we can get in these difficult times.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,061
    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 798

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    Sounds about right. We'll be at a month-long conflict before long and Russia's progress has been very slow of late. I struggle to see how they make a decisive breakthrough at this point.

    A lot more gain and suffering to come unless a compromise can be found diplomatically.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,779
    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    For NickPalmer and TOPPING:

    An overwhelming percentage of Ukrainians believe Russia will be defeated, and do not support a ceasefire unless Russia fully retreats from Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1505473701315284993

    The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.

    image

    Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia

    I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
    I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
    VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.

    We can surmise the aims were:

    1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus.
    2. No NATO for Ukraine.
    3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR.
    4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.

    1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney.
    2. That's a tick.
    3. and 4. are looking achievable.

    VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
    Putin shows no great urgency to settle, but he doesn't seem to be pursuing any strategic objectives either, eg if he was really exercised about a more sustainable Donbas within the Russian sphere he would be focusing on that.

    Putin is like Hitler in that respect and is a horror to deal with,
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,371
    edited March 2022

    Tempted to back the Windies here the way England are playing.

    Nah, what England are proving is that any attempt to increase the run rate on this pitch is suicidal but its not hard to bore your opponents to death as the Windies did in their innings, Braithwaite in particular. If I was Root I would give up and simply bat the day out. What's the point on wearing your bowlers out on such a pudding?

    And now its raining again. One of my life's ambitions is to watch a test series in the Carribean drinking rum with some mates. I am so glad I didn't choose this one.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    Bottas demonstrating why Merc dropped him.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,549

    As usual the author allows his extreme dislike of the Prime Minister to overshadow any point he is trying to make. I rather doubt that the reporting of a tiny element of what was quite a good and certainly well received speech will have any lasting effect whatsoever on Johnson's period as PM. If people's living standards decline for a prolonged period and the opposition parties manage to put together a semi plausible scenario to allay that ( a huge task for them) then Johnson is doomed. But perhaps not otherwise.

    By Johnson's recent standards (the last 30 years?) and with a far lower expectation than that demanded of any other senior UK politician, the speech was surprising well presented.

    Even if one edits out the analogy that the EU is tantamount to Putin's Russia, there remains an awful lot of, shall we call it, absolute b****cks?
    Part of Boris's problem is that he has burnt through a lot of people's reserves of benefit-of-the-doubt. His role in Vote Leave didn't help, but neither did Dom in Durham, sitting on the Russia Report, crisis school meals, Paterson, parties... It's quite a list. And looking at his CV, it's what he does and why he has that Cavalier swagger that people find attractive.

    But losing the BotD means that the rest of us are less inclined to give him credit when the boy does good and more inclined to believe the worst when he doesn't. See Blair post-Iraq or Major post-Black Wednesday.

    Not entirely fair, but human nature. And frankly, a PM expecting sympathy because politics is unfair is as absurd as a fish complaining that water is wet.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
    Deportations have already started from Mariupol.
    Forcible deportation is also a war crime.
  • Options
    FF43 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    For NickPalmer and TOPPING:

    An overwhelming percentage of Ukrainians believe Russia will be defeated, and do not support a ceasefire unless Russia fully retreats from Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1505473701315284993

    The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.

    image

    Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia

    I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
    I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
    VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.

    We can surmise the aims were:

    1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus.
    2. No NATO for Ukraine.
    3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR.
    4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.

    1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney.
    2. That's a tick.
    3. and 4. are looking achievable.

    VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
    Putin shows no great urgency to settle, but he doesn't seem to be pursuing any strategic objectives either, eg if he was really exercised about a more sustainable Donbas within the Russian sphere he would be focusing on that.

    Putin is like Hitler in that respect and is a horror to deal with,
    Fwiw I thinks he's smarter than Hitler but shares a similar tendency to press on his opponents' weaknesses, and if he finds they give way, press a little more. I think he's been genuinely surprised at the pushback this time.

    Unlike Hitler, he's in charge of a pretty sclerotic regime, so hopefully that restricts the extent of the damage he can wreak.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,371
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
    Deportations have already started from Mariupol.
    Forcible deportation is also a war crime.
    Do you think that we should dispatch someone from the Met with a warrant?
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
    Deportations have already started from Mariupol.
    Forcible deportation is also a war crime.
    You can certainly deport and kill people, but there are about 10 million people across the Donbass and the "land bridge". To kill at that scale you need Nazi scale crimes and I think that would bring outright war with NATO.

    And that is the "easy" part. You then have to bring in ethnic Russians. Which ethnic Russians would want to move to war destroyed Ukraine?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,082

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    They’re Germans… not Russians…
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563
    Aslan said:

    I see Peter Hitchens' latest attempt to smear Ukraine involves mentioning that the football stadium in Ternopil is named after Roman Shukhevych - a Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator. The name is not used by the Ukrainian FA.

    Of course the real problem with Ukraine is that it wants to integrate with the decadent west, that failing entity Hitchens so deplores.

    Hitchens is a reactionary that hates democracy. No doubt he would have supported Lord Halifax for PM if he were alive during WW2.
    Lord Halifax hated hitter and everything e stood for - see his diaries and letters.

    He wasn't convinced that when France fell, that the UK could do better than simply not fighting, and preventing the Germans invading.

    It is an interesting what-if - if the UK in 1940 had simply stopped attacking. Hitler would have pulled a lot more troops to the East, ready for his Big Mistake.

    Without the war with Germany, the Japanese might not have been confident they could attack in 1941....
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,779

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
    Deportations have already started from Mariupol.
    Forcible deportation is also a war crime.
    Some detail.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505264048002240515
    Several thousand Mariupol residents were illegally deported to Russia over the past week
    Acc to Oblast Council, they were taken to filtration camps. After their phones and docs inspection, some were driven to remote Russian cities; others' fate is unknown https://t.me/mariupolrada/8913
    The deported Mariupol residents are mostly women and kids who were hiding in shelters in the Left Bank district. Fightings took place there. To save people's lives, Ukraine's army withdrew from these places of mass gathering. Russian army made use of it illegally deporting locals
  • Options
    Ratters said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    Sounds about right. We'll be at a month-long conflict before long and Russia's progress has been very slow of late. I struggle to see how they make a decisive breakthrough at this point.

    A lot more gain and suffering to come unless a compromise can be found diplomatically.
    Whilst that is a reasonable assessment of the military situation, it ignores the war's collossal cost to Russia.

    If it were not for its nuclear arsenal, I think you could dismiss Russia as a serious player in world affairs for the foreseeable future.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
    Deportations have already started from Mariupol.
    Forcible deportation is also a war crime.
    You can certainly deport and kill people, but there are about 10 million people across the Donbass and the "land bridge". To kill at that scale you need Nazi scale crimes and I think that would bring outright war with NATO.

    And that is the "easy" part. You then have to bring in ethnic Russians. Which ethnic Russians would want to move to war destroyed Ukraine?
    That’s scant consolation to the victims.

    And it’s not impossible for the policy to succeed if Putin is just wanting to repopulate a southern corridor.
    He has levelled a city of 300k. Mass murder and deportation are not beyond him - indeed they are a deliberate instrument of policy.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Aslan said:

    I see Peter Hitchens' latest attempt to smear Ukraine involves mentioning that the football stadium in Ternopil is named after Roman Shukhevych - a Ukrainian nationalist and Nazi collaborator. The name is not used by the Ukrainian FA.

    Of course the real problem with Ukraine is that it wants to integrate with the decadent west, that failing entity Hitchens so deplores.

    Hitchens is a reactionary that hates democracy. No doubt he would have supported Lord Halifax for PM if he were alive during WW2.
    Lord Halifax hated hitter and everything e stood for - see his diaries and letters.

    He wasn't convinced that when France fell, that the UK could do better than simply not fighting, and preventing the Germans invading.

    It is an interesting what-if - if the UK in 1940 had simply stopped attacking. Hitler would have pulled a lot more troops to the East, ready for his Big Mistake.

    Without the war with Germany, the Japanese might not have been confident they could attack in 1941....
    I know he did, but he was also a proponent for "who are we to judge" in later speeches and called for ending the war.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,519
    A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    They’re Germans… not Russians…
    To be fair, the Russian Navy has not blown anyone out of the water for quite a while ...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    A thread for @Luckyguy1983

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1505463587292254208
    It's more convenient for them to turn the discourse over war crimes to a conspiracy fuelled debate over one incident, and make the entire debate about one thing, not a systematic pattern of crimes. Its exactly what they did in Syria, so let's not repeat the same pattern ourselves…
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,082
    TimT said:

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    They’re Germans… not Russians…
    To be fair, the Russian Navy has not blown anyone out of the water for quite a while ...
    There was that Panamian ship - but it could have been the Russian Air Force?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,253
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
    Deportations have already started from Mariupol.
    Forcible deportation is also a war crime.
    Do you think that we should dispatch someone from the Met with a warrant?
    Send Vlad a questionnaire at least.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,337

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    On this evidence, they're about a second a lap slower than Red Bull and Ferrari and barely quicker than Haas, Alfa Romeo and even Alpha Tauri.

    I don't see them making that up quickly.

    You have to say, this duel between Leclerc and Vercrashen is quite exciting though.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,779

    A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.

    Except this doesn't seem to be anything like what is happening in Ukraine.

    Or, indeed, Scotland
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205
    ydoethur said:

    Anyhoo, I've gone all in on Sir Lewis and Mercedes to win the titles this season.

    I feel it in my waters, within a few races the Merc will blow everyone out of the water.

    On this evidence, they're about a second a lap slower than Red Bull and Ferrari and barely quicker than Haas, Alfa Romeo and even Alpha Tauri.

    I don't see them making that up quickly.

    You have to say, this duel between Leclerc and Vercrashen is quite exciting though.
    Remarkable how different Verstappen is when it's not in his interest to crash.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,082

    A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.

    I’m missing the bit where, in any circumstances, thus would justify rUK invading Scotland, razing Edinburgh to the ground, deporting the surviving population to Wales and repopulating the country with a bunch of Sassenachs
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,519
    Nigelb said:

    A thread for @Luckyguy1983

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1505463587292254208
    It's more convenient for them to turn the discourse over war crimes to a conspiracy fuelled debate over one incident, and make the entire debate about one thing, not a systematic pattern of crimes. Its exactly what they did in Syria, so let's not repeat the same pattern ourselves…

    I never know quite which Tweet to read first. I read them all, and don't feel particularly informed. Big 'incidents' are what shift public opinion and make world headlines. It's seems understandable therefore that argument would concentrate on those incidents.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.

    At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.

    My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
    The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.

    The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
    Not even convinced they will win slowly now. And even if they did, somehow, they would not be able to hold it without a massive permanent military presence, like the US in Afghanistan. And that's independent of the economic crisis.
    It will be more like Iraq or Vietnam. Insurgency everywhere. A true nightmare

    Putin needs a ‘win’ he can sell, and then a retreat to regroup. Get the sanctions lifted
    He knows what happened in those countries, and in Afghanistan 1979-89. There's a simple way around it: kill or deport everyone. Make the country Russian by moving in ethnic Russians. Break the country by destroying its people.

    Will he do it? If he gets control, then yes, he will. Sadly.
    Deportations have already started from Mariupol.
    Forcible deportation is also a war crime.
    Do you think that we should dispatch someone from the Met with a warrant?
    Send Vlad a questionnaire at least.
    Surely Sue Gray can produce a report?
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,917

    As usual the author allows his extreme dislike of the Prime Minister to overshadow any point he is trying to make. I rather doubt that the reporting of a tiny element of what was quite a good and certainly well received speech will have any lasting effect whatsoever on Johnson's period as PM. If people's living standards decline for a prolonged period and the opposition parties manage to put together a semi plausible scenario to allay that ( a huge task for them) then Johnson is doomed. But perhaps not otherwise.

    You seem content to have a liar and a clown as PM, fortunately most people on PB don' t share that view, including many current and ex-Tory voters and members.

    The speech has been slammed across the board for his crass Brexit=Ukraine analogy. BTL comments on the Times, for example, were absolutely brutal. You might be safer back on UKIP Home.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205
    @Nigelb - great call on Mercedes, I think you'll win your bet.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 798

    Ratters said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    Sounds about right. We'll be at a month-long conflict before long and Russia's progress has been very slow of late. I struggle to see how they make a decisive breakthrough at this point.

    A lot more gain and suffering to come unless a compromise can be found diplomatically.
    Whilst that is a reasonable assessment of the military situation, it ignores the war's collossal cost to Russia.

    If it were not for its nuclear arsenal, I think you could dismiss Russia as a serious player in world affairs for the foreseeable future.
    I agree with that.

    Economically, Russia is in a tactically weak position (impact of sanctions, withdrawal of foreign investment), but in an even weaker strategic position. The acceleration of Europe moving away from Russian oil/gas will be impossible to avoid, and won't be coming back given the move to net zero. Demographics are already terrible and a prolonged war will only make them worse by killing off many young men.

    What will keep them as a player is their nuclear arsenal and the fear they are more willing than most to use it. Few will fear their conventional warfare in the same way again so long as they under NATO's protection.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    Nigelb said:

    A thread for @Luckyguy1983

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1505463587292254208
    It's more convenient for them to turn the discourse over war crimes to a conspiracy fuelled debate over one incident, and make the entire debate about one thing, not a systematic pattern of crimes. Its exactly what they did in Syria, so let's not repeat the same pattern ourselves…

    I never know quite which Tweet to read first. I read them all, and don't feel particularly informed. Big 'incidents' are what shift public opinion and make world headlines. It's seems understandable therefore that argument would concentrate on those incidents.
    It really is simple. Have the Russians switched to a strategy of shelling civilian populations into submission and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and cultural icons, into rubble? Yes or No. It is no more complex or falsely sophisticated than that.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,519

    A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.

    I’m missing the bit where, in any circumstances, thus would justify rUK invading Scotland, razing Edinburgh to the ground, deporting the surviving population to Wales and repopulating the country with a bunch of Sassenachs
    Well, it doesn't, as it doesn't in Russia's case either, but yet it's not impossible to see circumstances where the scenario might get really ugly.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,574

    As usual the author allows his extreme dislike of the Prime Minister to overshadow any point he is trying to make. I rather doubt that the reporting of a tiny element of what was quite a good and certainly well received speech will have any lasting effect whatsoever on Johnson's period as PM. If people's living standards decline for a prolonged period and the opposition parties manage to put together a semi plausible scenario to allay that ( a huge task for them) then Johnson is doomed. But perhaps not otherwise.

    The PM's speech was "certainly well-received". At a Tory Party Conference? Well I never.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.

    I’m missing the bit where, in any circumstances, thus would justify rUK invading Scotland, razing Edinburgh to the ground, deporting the surviving population to Wales and repopulating the country with a bunch of Sassenachs
    Well, it doesn't, as it doesn't in Russia's case either, but yet it's not impossible to see circumstances where the scenario might get really ugly.
    The word "impossible" is doing a lot of work there. The odds of that happening would be longer than 100,000 to 1.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,061

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?

    They are massive engineering structures.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,130
    Polling shows Ukrainians see Britain as their third closest ally after neighbouring Poland and Lithuania, ahead of the United States. France and Germany are seventh and fifth from bottom respectively. What this shows is the importance Ukrainians are placing on military aid.

    image

    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1505566830496296964
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,314
    Nigelb said:

    Russia starts conscripting population living in occupied Donbas to reinforce its armed forces fighting in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of international law, including Geneva Convention. Russian officials’ list of war crimes continues to expand. They will be held accountable
    https://mobile.twitter.com/OlegNikolenko_/status/1505277919366627336

    More conscripts. That'll do the trick, Vlad.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,314

    Patrick Reevell
    @Reevellp
    ·
    18m
    Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant).
    A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.

    https://twitter.com/Reevellp/status/1505566638153809923
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    MattW said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr Malmesbury,

    "Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."

    So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.

    More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.

    Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
    The WHO have reported that they confirmed that 43 medical facilities have been attacked in the last 3 weeks.

    The World Health Organization has verified 43 attacks on health care in the three weeks since Russia invaded Ukraine and says hundreds more facilities remain at risk.
    https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087209901/world-health-organization-ukraine?t=1647785262329
    They must be really dumb bombs that the Russians have left, given the way they unerringly find a hospital when they go adrift...
  • Options
    NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,758
    Ratters said:

    Ratters said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    Sounds about right. We'll be at a month-long conflict before long and Russia's progress has been very slow of late. I struggle to see how they make a decisive breakthrough at this point.

    A lot more gain and suffering to come unless a compromise can be found diplomatically.
    Whilst that is a reasonable assessment of the military situation, it ignores the war's collossal cost to Russia.

    If it were not for its nuclear arsenal, I think you could dismiss Russia as a serious player in world affairs for the foreseeable future.
    I agree with that.

    Economically, Russia is in a tactically weak position (impact of sanctions, withdrawal of foreign investment), but in an even weaker strategic position. The acceleration of Europe moving away from Russian oil/gas will be impossible to avoid, and won't be coming back given the move to net zero. Demographics are already terrible and a prolonged war will only make them worse by killing off many young men.

    What will keep them as a player is their nuclear arsenal and the fear they are more willing than most to use it. Few will fear their conventional warfare in the same way again so long as they under NATO's protection.
    In land area and natural resources they are a super power. Not in any other respect. Only 11th in GDP they will drop further (much further?), aging demographics so cannot conduct high attrition warfare. Technologically second rate - their important arms export trade has just had its brand trashed. Dangers are many, especially given nukes. Ultra nationalist regime after humiliation meaning big conflict in a few years? Civil war where factions control the nukes? We (and Russians) might be lucky and a more pragmatic regime that tries to develop economy and constructively engage globally wins internal battle.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Ratters said:

    Ratters said:

    An interesting view on the conflict:

    https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

    Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.

    Sounds about right. We'll be at a month-long conflict before long and Russia's progress has been very slow of late. I struggle to see how they make a decisive breakthrough at this point.

    A lot more gain and suffering to come unless a compromise can be found diplomatically.
    Whilst that is a reasonable assessment of the military situation, it ignores the war's collossal cost to Russia.

    If it were not for its nuclear arsenal, I think you could dismiss Russia as a serious player in world affairs for the foreseeable future.
    I agree with that.

    Economically, Russia is in a tactically weak position (impact of sanctions, withdrawal of foreign investment), but in an even weaker strategic position. The acceleration of Europe moving away from Russian oil/gas will be impossible to avoid, and won't be coming back given the move to net zero. Demographics are already terrible and a prolonged war will only make them worse by killing off many young men.

    What will keep them as a player is their nuclear arsenal and the fear they are more willing than most to use it. Few will fear their conventional warfare in the same way again so long as they under NATO's protection.
    Even their nuclear advantage will decline over time. It is unclear they can purchase all the inputs needed to maintain nukes over time. Plus the US is investing heavily in anti-missile technology via its close defense work with the Israelis. There could come a point in the future where the West could shoot all the nukes out of the sky.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?

    They are massive engineering structures.
    I think that a more important factor is the environmental/planning issue.

    Offshore wind farms got hammered through, because, to the anger of some in the environmental community, the old Polaris sales jingle still works*.

    Mini-nukes on existing nuclear sites will get enough local support to be able to tell the environmental groups to piss off.

    Tidal lagoons are simply too vulnerable to the planning issue.

    Which is why I wonder if tidal turbines are not a better better. You can increment them, much more easily....

    *"Put the missile out to see. Where it's far away from me".
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,519

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    £££

    By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,130
    Being optimistic, I don't think it's impossible that this will end with Russia baulking at the prospect of being dominated by China and ending up with a pro-Western reformist government.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,519
    FF43 said:

    A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.

    Except this doesn't seem to be anything like what is happening in Ukraine.

    Or, indeed, Scotland
    No, it's what happened in Ukraine with EU accession and the Maidan protests.
  • Options
    AslanAslan Posts: 1,673


    Patrick Reevell
    @Reevellp
    ·
    18m
    Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant).
    A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.

    https://twitter.com/Reevellp/status/1505566638153809923

    And this is of course a city in the "land bridge" that the Russian apologist PBers say Russia might get in a peace treaty.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
    It means, effectively, deleting/reworking multiple square kilometres of shallow water seabed/tidal flats.

    This gets the environmentalists who are interested in such areas very, very upset.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    edited March 2022

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?

    They are massive engineering structures.
    They are a sea wall. With 160 turbines in two banks of 80. Unless the seabed surveys have gone REALLY awry, they are very straightforward to construct and maintain. CV an untried nuclear option that might have issues. Probably will. They usually do. And have to put hands in the taxpayers' pocket to bail them out.

    And even if lagoons got hit by costs that were doubled, they would still be a third cheaper than nuclear. And last 2, 3, 4 or more times as long. But there is no reason to believe that the costings are adrift at all.

    (My background is the oil industry, where if cost overruns approach 10%, the operator is likely to get fired. Private sector vs public sector costings....public sector just gets a tut and a pay cheque.)
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,253
    edited March 2022

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    £££

    By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
    BJ comes all over Welsh would be excellent headline.

    His track record over legacy projects isn't great, though the long term and permanent impairment of the Conservative and Unionist party looks promising.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,337

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    £££

    By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
    Ummmm...A Boris Jet has given him a legacy all right, but you don't think 'tidal lagoons' when you hear it.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137

    Nigelb said:

    Russia starts conscripting population living in occupied Donbas to reinforce its armed forces fighting in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of international law, including Geneva Convention. Russian officials’ list of war crimes continues to expand. They will be held accountable
    https://mobile.twitter.com/OlegNikolenko_/status/1505277919366627336

    More conscripts. That'll do the trick, Vlad.
    Er, weeks back, wasn't Vlad firing generals because they, er, used conscripts that they weren't supposed to take to war? All very confusing. Almost as if Putin has double standards or something.
  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,390

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    £££

    By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
    BJ comes all over Welsh would be excellent headline.

    His track reord over legacy projects isn't great.
    Spaffing it into the air rather than up the wall?

    :wink:
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,337

    Nigelb said:

    Russia starts conscripting population living in occupied Donbas to reinforce its armed forces fighting in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of international law, including Geneva Convention. Russian officials’ list of war crimes continues to expand. They will be held accountable
    https://mobile.twitter.com/OlegNikolenko_/status/1505277919366627336

    More conscripts. That'll do the trick, Vlad.
    Er, weeks back, wasn't Vlad firing generals because they, er, used conscripts that they weren't supposed to take to war? All very confusing. Almost as if Putin has double standards or something.
    The way things are going he'll be running out of generals to fire very soon.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,061

    FF43 said:

    eek said:

    If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?

    This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.

    They are entirely compatible.
    1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities.
    2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one.
    3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1)
    4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.

    I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
    On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.

    And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
    It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
    The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.

    If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.

    *One lasting decades.
    Still nothing on the relative costs.

    And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
    The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).

    So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.

    The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
    AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.

    From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones

    Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
    By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.

    Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
    Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?

    They are massive engineering structures.
    They are a sea wall. With 160 turbines in two banks of 80. Unless the seabed surveys have gone REALLY awry, they are very straightforward to construct and maintain. CV an untried nuclear option that might have issues. Probably will. They usually do. And have to put hands in the taxpayers' pocket to bail them out.

    And even if lagoons got hit by costs that were doubled, they would still be a third cheaper than nuclear. And last 2, 3, 4 or more times as long. But there is no reason to believe that the costings are adrift at all.

    (My background is the oil industry, where if cost overruns approach 10%, the operator is likely to get fired. Private sector vs public sector costings....public sector just gets a tut and a pay cheque.)
    From an engineering pov, what is their maximum depth?
This discussion has been closed.